4.7 Article

A training image evaluation and selection method based on minimum data event distance for multiple-point geostatistics

期刊

COMPUTERS & GEOSCIENCES
卷 104, 期 -, 页码 35-53

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.cageo.2017.04.004

关键词

Multiple-point geostatistics; Candidate training images; Evaluation and optimal selection; Minimum data event distance

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41372116, 41572081]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A training image (TI) can be regarded as a database of spatial structures and their low to higher order statistics used in multiple-point geostatistics (MPS) simulation. Presently, there are a number of methods to construct a series of candidate TIs (Cris) for MPS simulation based on a modeler's subjective criteria. The spatial structures of TIs are often various, meaning that the compatibilities of different CTIs with the conditioning data are different. Therefore, evaluation and optimal selection of CTIs before MPS simulation is essential. This paper proposes a en evaluation and optimal selection method based on minimum data event distance (MDevD). In the proposed method, a set of MDevD properties are established through calculation of the MDevD of conditioning data events in each CTI. Then, Ms are evaluated and ranked according to the mean value and variance of the MDevD properties. The smaller the mean value and variance of an MDevD property are, the more compatible the corresponding en is with the conditioning data. In addition, data events with low compatibility in the conditioning data grid can be located to help modelers select a set of complementary CTIs for MPS simulation. The MDevD property can also help to narrow the range of the distance threshold for MPS simulation. The proposed method was evaluated using three examples: a 2D categorical example, a 2D continuous example, and an actual 3D oil reservoir case study. To illustrate the method, a C++ implementation of the method is attached to the paper.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据